ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- A comparison between an American Sherman tank and and the German Panther tank in ability in cross country driving.
Music:
Meditation 1 av Audionautix licensieras under licensen Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Artist: audionautix.com/
Best Panther commercial ever!
Does that come with an operational lease ?
Yea. Go to walmart or Lidl and buy it
@@nitkonikada9892 jebem mu kruh, steta sto nisam u americi hahahhsh
If the US army had seen that German test movie,, they sure have ordered a few thousand.
@@steffenrosmus9177 The test video was actually done by sweden post war with a french panther.
BT-5 vs water ditch...
*BT-5 literally flies over it*
no one cares. go back to mother russias youtube section :)
@@zoolkhan did you just insult the motherland?
@@zoolkhan bruh It’s a joke
Sherman: ttthhhhbt *stall*
Panther: *GRRRRRRR GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR*
: GRRRRRRR GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
is the noise of its transmission destroying its self .......lol and then 67% don't make it to the battle.......
@@OTCaptainSean thats just a myth like shermans being good lol.
@@eifelerplanespotter653 Um no its not that is from German readiness rates.... the transmission was very unreliable and the final drive gear was made for a 25 ton tank but they used it in the 45 ton Panther anyway.
@@OTCaptainSean the sherman still sucked in comparison to a panther etc. also it looks like some kid designed that tank.
@@eifelerplanespotter653 ahh yeah some kid designed that tank, yeah
*so why he won in europe, in north africa, on pacyfic, on eastern front, and korea* ?
Germany: designing most technologicaly advanced weapons and best tactics
U.S.: designing most unhealthy food and then private healthcare
Not really.
Hearing that from a tankie or whatever is kinda funny
Just checking the comment section to see what the experts have to say.
pretty funny huh
D N
Beleidigungen bitte nur auf deutsch. Danke
Well the wider tracks are important but its the interleaved
Roadwheels that spread out the weight so well. And that torsion bar suspension is magnificent.
Problem with the Panther was they kept improving it throughout the war, so that by the end , as a German tanker who fought in Panthers told me, "not one screw from one would fit another." His face got very red when he told me this. He bragged that the Panther was a much better Tank, but said if you had 10 broken Panthers, you had 10 broken Panthers. If you had 10 broken Shermans, you could get as many as 8 going by cannibalizing the other two.
Well on the other hand no enemy could use parts from a broken Panther
That can be said for the sherman aswell. It changed armor, engine, suspension, gun and even hatches during the war
. . . "Tracks" are EVERYTHING !
Its a well known fact that panthers, tiger 1, tiger II, had much better offroad performance than the shermans. Your not beating the torsion bar suspension, wide Tracks. They actually move very well for what people give them credit for
Challenger2 Black night hmm, it’s almost like german tanks were designed for Germany, and the Sherman was designed for multiple fronts as well as being modified over many variants for reasons such as safety improvements, better firepower, or refinements. While the panther never changed that much besides just a few variants.
True but they break that was the main issue
@@minnesotangaming8966 you do relize there were 7 variants of the Panther from Aus A to Aus G which Aus G was the final variant of the Panther. The Panther and Tiger 1 show is its true potential in the Russian Steppes during the summer time but during the Winter the Russian winter cause nothing but issues for the Germans and for the Panther and Tiger1. The Shermans were design as fast production tanks that could be easier shipped to different fronts.
@@minnesotangaming8966 Panthers were indirect copy or a better version of T-34. Wide Tracks and sloped armour. Tigers were designed after the German encounter with KV1 and similar to KV1 has a high velocity gun and thick vertical armour, read about Battle of Raseiniai and you will get the context. Single KV1 stopped the German armour for 24 hours.
@@MrRishabSharma oh my dear lord you’re making me sick. I think I’m gonna throw up due to the amount of shit in the air from this comment
Panther a beautyfull Tank :-)
@Flattop box why would you insult somebody just because they think the panther is beautiful tank which it is
@Flattop box Accepted 😊
The panther is not a good tank.
It a good tank if the German use the correct transmission rather than the modified one for easier to produce and also some other stuff like better engine. Other than mechanic problem and if it fix it a very good tank.
Panther was shit..
Panther chasing you in forest, literal nightmare if you was alone
I want a horror movie with a panther tank.
Actually the test were conducted by the swedish army :)
that is true. Do u know why?? :)
Yeah because if the americans would have did it would the result be unrrliable or faked.
Yeah, they tested several tanks after the war for buying. I think they bought the panther for these tests.
ja det är väldigt sant
@@kdawur yes. The Swedish even bought a Tiger II for testing. I think there was an article about that on Tanks Encyclopedia.
its a tank designed to counter the t 34 and to invade the USSR. What do you expect?
That froze if mud got in the suspension and froze overnight
@@deleteduser3455 and can only go as far as 150 km before it breaks down
You're way better off just watching the original Swedish film. The Swedish film actaully provides the context and additional practical information in regards to their trials. Look up "Stridsvagnars framkomlighet / Tank cross-country capability: Sherman vs Panther vs Strv m/42" It has english subtitles.
Apparently it has been taken down from TH-cam.
can be found here : www.dailymotion.com/video/x31qqzl
@@juslitor Thank you!
The comment section is full of kids who have tier 7 on german tanks in WoT
hehehe ;)
Or actually now shit about german steel and ww2.
Niklas7779 I know you from somewhere
Yeah you are the guy who was not able to understand I was talking about civilians
Niklas7779 a couple hundred civvies don’t matter
I love german tank! 💖
The biggest problem with the Panther was the ability of Germany to support them in the field. The Sherman in contrast was much simpler to maintain.
Crew survivability was also higher for the Sherman it was just much easier to get out of than the Panther.
This test should have used a latter version of the Sherman with the upgraded suspension design.
Still have to respect the Panther in many ways it showed the way for future MBT'S. But if you want to win a war you have to be able to support your military in the field.
SHERMAN for the WIN
Thank you. Not to mention this is a Firefly. A mid to latewar design on a early war chassis
Germany had more of the Panzer 3 and 4 's through the whole war and less of Panther en far less Tigers.If they were built more earlier in the war ,it would of been a different story.Shermans were mass produced and could replace tanks way faster than panther and tiger could, even though kill ratio on panther and tiger was enormous.Take into consideration materials became scarse for Germany at the end to built anything,even factories became unoperational due to bombings plus Russia that hurt the 3rd Reich before the allies of the West came.If allies had come before operation Barbarossa,Germany would have driven the allies of the west, back to the ocean.
Correct the Americans were no match for the Germans Not even the Soviets but they got lucky.
we say in Persian language if my aunt had balls she had became my uncle!!
@@victormendiola4927 Oh yeah U Boat sunk Iowa Luftwaffe sunk 122 carriers USA weak indeed
@@syr1363 In Italy we equally say" If my grandma hadhad wheels she were a wheelbarrow".
If you are tank commander you chose Panther. If you are general, you chose Pz 4. Panthers and Tigers were slow, not reliable, costly, fuel comsumtion. Germans didnt have great wictories 1940 - 41 , if they worked Panthers insstead Pz 3 or 4. Yes, better tank to tank kill ratio but this is all.
German war machinery stands for quality 👌
So why did so many break down?
DutyofCall actually they break down a lot.
German tanks specially the Tiger Tanks were of high quality and feared on the battlefield but hopelessly outnumbered.
DutyofCall that's why they lost. Their air force is gone and their fuel is limited. One of the reason they did quality over quantity is because they had limited fuel for many tanks.
They don’t put Quality over Quantity because of Limited fuel. The fuel wasnt a Problem either until they lost the Balkan with all his oil but that isnt relevant because we talked
about the quality. German Engineering is amazing until today no doubt about that.
We do have to remember that while the sherman had problems, we cannot forget that it was designed this way for a reason.
Its designed is the reason why the allies could amass so many of them.
Its because they couldnt just build them there, theh had to build them overseas and ship them, which took fuel, so the more tanks you can bring in the same trip, the better supplied your army is going to be.
The panther on the other hand, while having a great gun, armor, and speed. With its wide tracks.
We also cannot forget that it had massive reliability issues, its combat range wasnt good, and transporting them was a nightmare. As trains had to be modified to accomidate them. That and germany had no fuel, thus couldnt actually fuel them into combat.
There is also the problem with crews. German tanks...arent very gold when it came to survivability. Idk if its the tank or the allies ammo, but at this time of the war, german tank crews were dangeriously low of experienced tank crews and had alot of inexperienced tankers.
The sherman on the other hand had multiple escape hatches that allowed their crew to get out and fight another day. Though there has been instances of the sherman catching on fire, once wet ammo racks were introduced, this became very difficult. And even then, the sherman can be salvaged, repaired, and then sent to the battlefield.
Everywhere you see Armor there being transported on trains. 35 tons is massive amount of wieght ! The trucks at the time with small diesel engines and gas engine ouldn't pull them up hill much less a mountain .they had to be hauled on trains .
Germany only learned mass production methods which worked in April 44 up until May 45 and all of those panthers in that timeframe were Panther Ausf G
German quality at its finest. 👌😍
Ww2 German quality at its finest was the stug
Sherman, won war? = Ding!
Panther, lost war? = Ding!
spackle9999 you are a idiot ding
Even if you have the best tank ever when your enemy can produce 50000 and you only 1000 you sure you cant win
Tanks are about mobility and offering crew protection.. And where was the Panther mobile offering crew protection Germany. And where was the Sherman mobile? All of Asia, the entire Middle East and North Africa, Russia, Iran, France..and of course the United States if necessary...and ultimately Germany...and even all the way to Czechoslovakia!
Where were your Panther tanks then?
Maybe Linz, Austria...but not Czechoslovakia.
Just remember that the panther is the best tank of ww2
Sure wasn't at Kursk.
Google "the destruction of Army Group Center" if you need an actual data point.
Sherman tractor
Panter is tank
هههههههههههه
that tractor worked in all theatres of war, that tank was lucky to drive 150km before they it broke down.
Douglas Orr Only the very early D model had those issues, by the Panther A it was actually quite reliable
Douglas Orr World of Tanks is a very doubtful source. Reality is often veeery different.
@@michaelpielorz9710 where do I mention WoT here?
Made In Germany... Good..
American made equipment is made to last forever.
@@ezra2774 american equipment its shit
@kohlshu Yeah like honestly you cant defend the german engines of ww2. almost every heavy tank had under powered engines for its weight.
Cole3050 The Tiger I could pretty much go just as fast as the Sherman and the Panther was even faster... so who is underpowered again? Tiger II and Jagdtiers definitely
ļêñî ğäćhå and not American equipment was not meant to last forever. It was meant to get the job done and be easy enough to repair. German equipment was meant to last forever but often more difficult to repair.
Sherman: quantity=quality
6000 Panther vs 49000 Sherman
Thats an older hulled Sherman with outdated tracks and suspension (yes ik it's a firefly but the tracks and hull are the same), If the Sherman was an M4A3(76)w HVSS with the wider 23" tracks instead of the 16" ones and HVSS then it would have almost matched the Panther in terms of travel and would have beaten it in terms of smoothness and off road top speed.
The HVSS shermans had a ground pressure of around 0.77kg/cm^2, the panther is not quite as good with 0.88kg/cm^2 so in off road conditions the M4A3 HVSS could make 30-35kph while the Panther was more 25-30kph.
I must say also, this might just be the biggest case of Wehraboo numb-skulls i've ever come across, literally 40% of the comments are "GERMAN ENGINEERING IS DA BEST".
Actually in many ways the M4 sherman was more advanced than the Panther,
-The sherman had composite rubber and steel tracks that all MBT's Use today, The
panther didn't
-The Sherman had a gyroscopic stabilizer which allowed the gun to be somewhat
accurate on the move and keep the gun steady when slowing down to a hault to aim
properly meaning you can aim faster and get the first shot off which was the
predicessor to all MBT computer fire control systems, The Panther didn't.
-The Later m4a3's placed the Ammo racks in sponsons lower in the hull which were
alot harder to hit and they were surrounded in wet fire retardant which reduced the
chance of the ammo catching on fire when hit from ~60-70% to about 5-10%. The
Panther Didn't
-The M4 sherman had smoke rounds, The panther didn't
-The M4 sherman had a very powerful and percise Hydrdraulic turret turning
mechinism rather than a hand crank like all MBT's today, The panther didn't
-The M4 sherman had Helical gears instead of the normal spur gears which last
twice as long, The Panther didn't.
I could keep going on but the Wehraboo's might start crying because their almighty
Reich isn't as perfect as they thought.
NedYarbNexus the armor was still better on panthet
+Alterate Awful but we aren't comparing armor we are comparing Verticle climbing capability, Suspension Drive and Suspension travel.
The Armor on the sherman isn't as much worse as people think and infact the turret front is only very slighly better on the panther and turret side and rear armor is actually better on the Sherman rather than panther.
Alterate Awful doesn't matter the 76mm m1 tank gun the same used on the hellcat was more than enough to punch thur a panthers front armor. so at the end of the day it matters who gets the first shot and my money is on the sherman
Alternate Awful LOL no.
_M4A3 HVSS could make 30-35kph while the Panther was more 25-30kph_
No. The Panther can go 45 km/h off road with ease, and could probably pull 55 km/h if we remove the speed governor. The dual torsion bar suspension combined with the interleaved roadwheel design make the Panther more stable _the faster it goes_ , reducing flotation and improving the ride. The Sherman, while not superior to the Panther, was still quite good, and certainly better than many other tanks, like T-34 (which had the off-road mobility of the Tiger I)
_The Sherman had a gyroscopic stabilizer which allowed the gun to be somewhat accurate on the move_
This is true. The Germans weren´t idiot, though. They just had a different approch, which aimed at stabilizing the tank instead of stabilizing the gun (that is why the Panther can pull out stuff like this: th-cam.com/video/9rUocSj2dHc/w-d-xo.htmlm11s ) In the end, the stabilizer was the way of the future, but just goes off to show that the Germans weren´t oblivious to the concept, just chose another approach that in the end didn´t turn out to be correct.
_The M4 sherman had Helical gears instead of the normal spur gears which last twice as long, The Panther didn't_
This was a conscious decision, though. Lack of factory cutting tools dictated some design choices in Germany, because not everyone is bathing in money like Uncle Sam :D
_The M4 sherman had a very powerful and percise Hydrdraulic turret turning mechinism rather than a hand crank like all MBT's today, The panther didn't_
This seems to imply that the Panther lacked a good turret motor, which was not the case. The turret could do 360º in less than 20 seconds.
That being said, the Sherman is a tank that has a bad reputation, and it is _undeserved_ .
This video is almost propaganda. It's Sherman vs. Panzer IV, and Pershing vs. Panther. I also want to add that the Sherman was made for the terrains of USA, not Europe. Wasn't it Patton who called it "the right tank for the wrong war?" The biggest problem with the Sherman is that the short-barrel 75mm was ridiculous, and the 76mm still didn't compare to the high velocity Sherman Firefly. If only the Sherman would have come from the factory with a properly fitted long-barrel 75mm cannon similar to the Firefly, well then, there would have been far more knock-outs and much less casualties.
+MGTOW_Monk
The environments of the U.S. vary considerably more than Europe. And have a blend of what fronts the U.S. encountered.
The _75mm. Gun M3_ was not short. What are you on about?
Oh, I meant to say that the barrel was too short for what was needed for reliable anti-tank AP velocity. Yes, you're right, the barrel is more like a medium sized barrel. What was needed was the long high velocity barrel that the firefly had.
So was it in ww2. The Pershing didn't saw much action in ww2. Same for IS-2 so not Propaganda it's reality
@Jas. Strong-Oak You know the earlie versions had alot technical issues but MAN learned from their mistakes and alot were fixed on later versions. And they were rare for americans but not for the russians.
Slow hand craked turrets ? LOL you know the later version had an improved turret with much more faster rotaition speed. And break down of course since mostly prisoniers made the parts for the tanks and were so manipulated. And show me how you transport in a tank sepcial tools, a speperate engine and transmission and the special tools to repair it. It's known and a true fact that german tanks are in combat superior to every other tank back at that time but the service of them was hard because they were superior due to complicated production and parts. But still was the Panther the perfect tank. Speed, armor and firepower. And some parts and knowledege/ ideas from the Panther were taken over into modern MBT's. And if the Panther would be a bad tank why didn't they take the Sherman instead ?
The problems the sherman has is down to the type of suspension used. There is a film of a comparison of a centaur and a sherman and the sherman gets stuck trying to mount an obstacle the hight of a railway sleeper on its side.
People argue the Sherman tank has better mobility... but you know, the video doesn't lie. The Sherman had narrower tracks, so its off road was rubbish, even worse, the Panther was faster, even though it was *heavier* than the Sherman. The Sherman was more reliable, and had better vision, but in every other way, gun, armour, drivability, speed, mobility...the Panther was better.
Not really the case with speed. Cross country performance depended on specific environment and conditions at hand.
GERMAN ENGINEERING THE SUPERIOR...ALWAYS!!!!
but extravagant of fuel
until it break's down, which it would shortly lol
German Engineering is Superior...
If so then why couldn't they create less brittle armor, or gun stabilizers, or any tank with less breakdowns?
Wrong all german tank concepts from WW2 were dropped or not adopted after the war. 0 slope armour, petrol engines (a shocking design choice for a tank), front driven drives (a serious design flaw), interloping wheels is to name but a few fails of German engineering = overweight and overengineered german tanks.
These mention but a few serious tank design flaws not present in Soviet tanks for example and other than 0 slope armour rigidly stuck to by the Germans.
German engineering = more talk than reality.
Nope German engineering is real mate sorry
Excuss me, but who won WW2 with which tank? Oh, that's right the Shermans won. It's not about the individual tank but it is the combined arms tactics and strategy. Just watch The Chieftain's videos about the Sherman. Mic drop!!
Die Guten Alten Deutschen Panzer , waren halt die besten
@Axel Vanderoost yes , He was very Megalomaniac
This video was very biased to the panther. But, yet again the panther was unique in all shapes no matter the scenario.
To this day, you cannot beat German engineering
Meh.
German engineering is more good propaganda and over-engineering than actual good engineering, not much has changed since back then.
German engineering produced a higher loss to kill rate for most vehicles they fielded. Some stuff is overengineered, thats for sure, but sometimes you need a better vehicle when you cannot provide enough crews.
yes you can,
we did back then.
imgur.com/EVKUetf
and we do now
fastestlaps.com/tests/jmev7s5lubeg
fastestlaps.com/tests/k3gplgiav8z7
Russian tanks were a lot better, you just dont hear about it. But i agree, they were extremely advanced
The Sherman was reliable, easy to build and had a wide range. The Panther had none of these features
to be fair , the sherman is not a good fighting tank , its more of a support tank . the panther is a fighting tank and is better than a sherman in terms of fighting , support wise , its debatable
Sherman is an amazing fighting tank. Easy for the crew to maintain, very adaptable design, very very comfortable, very good visibility, fairly sized.
El mejor ,el PANTHER ,la torta 34 no tenia nada que hacer al lado de esta bestia todo terreno ,versatil y veloz !!!!!💙💪
Ami Schrott !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Billige Blechdose auf ketten!
both are beautiful and legendary tanks.
But Panther is Much Better!😂😎
Germans TANKS! BEST QUALITY!.. Sherman its just trash.. AWESOME VIDEO!..Thanks!
Nonsense.
The Sherman still helped the allies win ww2 lol
But terms of assets. The Sherman had better maintainance, crew survivability and able to be easily modified for various roles
The 76mm variant made it able to stand against the Panzers, the Jumbo variant made it easily survive most field gun calibers due to more armor (along with keeping it sloped like a BMP's armor)
Panther was best medium tank of WW2.But it’s reliability was flawed in some aspects.And it was expensive to build and complex compare with that Soviet and American tanks.
wrote: "Panther was best medium tank of WW2."
-- It would be medium at VK 30.02 prototype, but it didn't, so it became over 40 tons heavy, with all the problems of service and transportation of the heavy tank, so it is highly debatable that it was "medium", let alone best medium tank of WW2, since it came with all problems that wasd not resolved to the end of the war. And frankly never replaced a true medium German tank Pz-IV, which in my books is best medium German tank of WW2, therefor its not the best Medium tank of WW2.
reliability and cost is not the issue here, that will be suited for another discussion
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 agree that would be another topic
Sounds like a BMW.
Panther was comparable with panzer four in terms of expenses so it is not that expensive but a lot of panthers were sabotaged though I think out of 6,000 at least 1,500 were sabotaged in some way also there was too much pressure on the suspension which made it prone to breakdown
Т-34 good
Darn right it was..
We do know already why you said that why t34 is a good tank
Russian prick
A panter was much bettter,but it was not important when you make 50000 versus 1000 panthers.The Americans had also a logistical problem the sherman was the biggest tank possible for cargo in the standard liberty ships.
That's why it has 4 lifting-eyes.
Who is on here?The krauts LOST WW1 and WW2...Does that say anything to peoples tiny brains?
@@j.4332 You reveal your own ignorance if you think that means their gear wasn't superior.
In both cases they were winning till we showed up with a fresh empire worth of people and their untouched industrial strength.
They also had a signifigantly higher k/d ratio. It didn't show as much in the West because we fought mostly kids and old people.
@@gratefulguy4130 So...in other words they lost because they were incompetent despite all their invincible "wunderwaffen"?You could build 4 M-4s or T-34s in the time it took to build a Panther.Then all the obssession with producing weird aircraft like the DO-335 etc.
@@j.4332 Obviously higher k/d ratios speak of incompetence. I can practically hear you seething from here. Are you okay?
just listen to the engines of both tanks.One purrs like a kitteh and the other sounds like someone threw some nuts and bolts in the washing machine
the best tanks were of German and Russian production, the Americans produced tanks favoring the quantity rather than the quality that appeared to be average ... only with the introduction of the Abrams tank could one say that the quality of production of tanks American has begun to be high ... if you notice in many archive photos, many American tanks like the M60 have additional armor, this kind of modification immediately makes you think of a poor quality in the design and construction... a good tank designed to withstand the attacks of anti-tank missiles and grenades, as much as these weapons are very devastating, should not carry additional armor if this tank designed correctly from the beginning... :)
> *_"the best tanks were of German and Russian production, the Americans produced tanks favoring the quantity rather than the quality that appeared to be average"_*
This notion is based on what exactly?
> *_"if you notice in many archive photos, many American tanks like the M60 have additional armor, this kind of modification immediately makes you think of a poor quality in the design and construction.."_*
That claim makes no sense.
Sweden is the best when it comes to tank testing!
Yeah these tests without most important things
@@gabrielborawski6739 Have you ever watched the full original clips?
For a country as sweden with bogs, thick forests, lots of snow, and rough rocky terrain this is rather important stuff. Sure on the dry fields in southern europe it dosen't matter much.
The panther was awesome the issue was it was complicated so maintenance was a nightmare when it broke down
The suspension was also a bad design in practice because even though it was very clever it ignored the fact that you need empty space in suspension or else dirt and stuff jams it up eventually and if it freezes you have to take the suspension apart that’s why it isn’t used anymore also the panther was overweight which made it break down fairly often yes it’s exaggerated like everything from WW2 for comedic effect mostly like how the Shermans weren’t death traps but they were fairly lightly armoured all things considered. The stereotypes have a basis in reality but aren’t necessarily completely accurate
You dident show the panther bursting into flames climbing any of the hills or how the turrent couldent traverse on an incline of 20 degrees or how every 150km the final drive breaks and takes an entire day to fix or you dident mention how Turning in place breaks severl severl things in the tank. I mean the bottom line is the shaman was a all around better tank and I like how you showed the a4 Sherman with the multi bank engine when everyone knows that the e8 Sherman is best Sherman and oh yeah the Sherman can pen the panther at 900m with hvap and the Sherman dosent have to stop firing to let the gun recoil tubes recover and 105mm heat can pen the Panthers upper plate with ease and 75mm HE would cause the hull sides to fracture. I mean the British army after the war concluded that the Sherman was on average 3.6 times more effective than the panther. So thanks for the almost useless German fanboy bias video
@John Cornell Its over exaggerated.
because its true.
@John Cornell This is from "Panther vs Sherman- Battle of the Bulge 1944," Statistics and Analysis, Tank Fighting in 1944: Technology or Tactics:
"The US Army's Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) conducted some operational research of tank-verses-tank fighting in an effort to determine what factors led to battlefield success...records indicate that typical tank-verse-tank engagements were usually small unit actions, on average involving nine tanks on the US side and four Wehrmacht AFVs; less than one-third of the engagements involved more than three German AFVs. The average range at which the US tanks inflicted kills on the panzers was 983 yards, while the German kills on average were from 946 yards...The study concluded that the single most important factor in tank-verses-tank fighting was which side spotted the enemy first, engaged first, and hit first...Of incidents studied, defenders fired first 84 percent of the time. When defenders fired first, the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties than the defender. When attackers fired first, the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties than the attackers...During 29 engagements involving Shermans and Panthers, the Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data suggests that the Panther was 1.1 times more effective than the Sherman when fighting from the defense, while the Sherman had an 8.4 advantage against the Panther when fighting from defense. The overall record suggests that the Sherman was 3.6 times more effective than the Panther. This ratio was probably not typical of all Sherman-verses-Panther exchanges during the war and may also be due to inadequate data collection. Nevertheless, the popular myths that Panthers enjoyed a 5-t-1 kill ratio against Shermans or that it took five Shermans to knock out a Panther have no basis at all."
@John Cornell You didn't comprehend the study.....it was more about attack and defense and first shot seeing how the Sherman has better FOW and stabilizer it gets the first shot more often.
On the Brits did study the 75mm Sherman and found the panther was 2.0 as effective at 1000 meters but only 1.5 more effective 600 meters and closer. And the 17 pdr Sherman the panther was only 1.2 more effective at all ranges the average engagement range in WWII was 500-800 meters
Also on the battle of the bulge Allied total tank looses 800 German tank looses 600..... and Allied tanks where 50% killed by gunfire and average of 25% of allied tanks where lost do to breakdowns and terrain.
Also the Germans count looses different than the allies the Germans will count a tank loose only when it can't be repaired/destroyed or left behind the allies will count a loose if it was disabled in any way. So example would be 10 panthers attack 2 destroyed 3 are disabled by gun fire and 1 breaks down 4 make it back unscathed. The Germans will not count those 3 disabled tanks as looses where as the Western Allies would count them as a loss.
And then, logically, the Sherman won the war.
logically , Soviet won the war.... US just landing in Europe after Soviet beat the Nazi so hard....1944 Nazi game over already... Lmao. Otherwise , Europe maybe speak russian now...
@@DeZug Perfectly Right. Without landing, The Red Army would have won the war in France, around 1947. According to armoured vehicles, I notice that Soviet and US have choosen medium tanks who certainly cound't compete one to one with heavy german tanks. But German tanks were always overnumbered. Question of stategy... not very sympathetic for allied crews, indeed.
Damn, there are alot of wheraboos that don't consider the frequent breakdown rate, difficulty of repairing, price, poor welds at the end of the war and manufacturing difficulties of the panther.
They also don't consider that the Sherman rarely saw tigers and panthers in combat
@@a.t6066 But when it did.........lol
This is from "Panther vs Sherman- Battle of the Bulge 1944," Statistics and Analysis, Tank Fighting in 1944: Technology or Tactics:
"The US Army's Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) conducted some operational research of tank-verses-tank fighting in an effort to determine what factors led to battlefield success...records indicate that typical tank-verse-tank engagements were usually small unit actions, on average involving nine tanks on the US side and four Wehrmacht AFVs; less than one-third of the engagements involved more than three German AFVs. The average range at which the US tanks inflicted kills on the panzers was 983 yards, while the German kills on average were from 946 yards...The study concluded that the single most important factor in tank-verses-tank fighting was which side spotted the enemy first, engaged first, and hit first...Of incidents studied, defenders fired first 84 percent of the time. When defenders fired first, the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties than the defender. When attackers fired first, the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties than the attackers...During 29 engagements involving Shermans and Panthers, the Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data suggests that the Panther was 1.1 times more effective than the Sherman when fighting from the defense, while the Sherman had an 8.4 advantage against the Panther when fighting from defense. The overall record suggests that the Sherman was 3.6 times more effective than the Panther. This ratio was probably not typical of all Sherman-verses-Panther exchanges during the war and may also be due to inadequate data collection. Nevertheless, the popular myths that Panthers enjoyed a 5-t-1 kill ratio against Shermans or that it took five Shermans to knock out a Panther have no basis at all."
so the sherman of choice here is the M4A4 sherman Vc (firefly)..................the 2nd least mobile version of the sherman (bar the Jumbo),
weighing 35,200kg (4-5 tonnes more than most Shermans) while still having the 400hp Chyslermulti bank engine and VVSS suspension and 16" track.
an M4A3 HVSS would have been able to do anything and everything the panther did here.
also i like how they didn't test to see how quickly they could turn off a road at high speed and into cover, especially since the Panther doesn't have regenerative steering while the Sherman does.
(the Panther has this super complex, expensive and unreliable Maybach Double differential and it doesn't even allow Regenerative steering or Neutral steering, it's embarrassing!)
Finally someone with enough brain...
_an M4A3 HVSS would have been able to do anything and everything the panther did here_
It would have performed better than the Firefly on some tasks, but not on all of them. Take 1 m obstacle, for example, or the forest crossing one.
+Richardsen
the forest crossing one it would just about have matched the panther, it's higher Power to weight ratio and it's better grip with the ground will allow it to be more grunty at pushing over obstacles.
as for Verticle climbing, yup, widening the tracks won't help the Sherman too much in that regard.
But on the whole when it comes to getting over verticle obstructions or crossing trenches the Sherman is better than the Panther because the Sherman can mount a Bulldozer kit while the Panther cannot
(due to the sherman having Boggies to mount a proper bulldozer push frame, the Panthers Torsion bar doesn't allow this so the only mounting point is the front which by itself is quite weak and the only way to make it strong enough is to make it undetachable.)
the Bulldozer kit can be quickly delivered on the back of a Jeep at 100kph attached to the front of any Sherman in 5 minutes and then the Sherman can move the surrounding dirt to build a ramp to cross almost any obstruction and fill in almost any trench/gap, ones far beyond the Verticle climbing ability of both itself and the Panther.
Infact the Shermans bulldozer can do more than just that, it can pave dirt roads or clear thick snow for other less mobile vehicles to drive down, create intrenchments quickly for either itself or others, clear rubble blocking a city streets.
Richardsen It could do it without any probem honestly...
_the forest crossing one it would just about have matched the panther, it's higher Power to weight ratio and it's better grip with the ground will allow it to be more grunty at pushing over obstacles_
The Sherman doesn´t have a significant advantage in power to weight ratio, though, and the Panther has a big asset in its mass: it is 50% heavier. I am curious about the traction, though. From the sources I have on hand, the Panther has a maximum traction force of 260 kN on loose soil. Sadly, I haven´t found any figures for the Sherman. Do you happen to have any?
_But on the whole when it comes to getting over verticle obstructions or crossing trenches the Sherman is better than the Panther because the Sherman can mount a Bulldozer kit while the Panther cannot (due to the sherman having Boggies to mount a proper bulldozer push frame, the Panthers Torsion bar doesn't allow this so the only mounting point is the front which by itself is quite weak and the only way to make it strong enough is to make it undetachable.) the Bulldozer kit can be quickly delivered on the back of a Jeep at 100kph attached to the front of any Sherman in 5 minutes and then the Sherman can move the surrounding dirt to build a ramp to cross almost any obstruction and fill in almost any trench/gap, ones far beyond the Verticle climbing ability of both itself and the Panther_
The Sherman could certainly do that... although I must admit it feels a bit tangential :D The bulldozer was not the most common of attachments for combat duty. It would be like claiming that the Panther has better mobility because it can move better at night by mounting infrared night vision devices.
On christmas eve, 1944, in the little village of Freyneux, the North Americans sent some men and 7 tanks, 2 M5 stuarts, 4 M4 shermans 76mm and 1 M4 Sherman 75mm. This is the story of how 7 inferior tanks repelled the attack of 16 german Panther tanks. One of the Panthers, was commanded by tank ace Fritz Langanke with I think 13 allied AFVs destroyed. This battle is also highlighted because it busted the myth of the german tank superiority.
@@GoetzimRegen yes but what I say is that some people think german tanks were the best and couldn't be destroyed
Kampgruppe Peiper's advance was stopped by a mix-and-match force of Shermans and a sole M36. A Sherman knocked out two Panthers from the front, one with a shot deflected off of the gun shield through the roof armor and another through the belly plate, before its gun jammed, and then the M36 knocked out a third. AFAIK none of the American force was lost.
R.J. Dunnill Ah but you will have all of these latter-day Nazis here telling you that: 1) Peiper (the butcher of Malmedy) was asleep; 2) those panthers weren’t panthers but Pzkfw IVs; 3) wass ist ein M36?
An episode of "Engineering Disasters" concerned with the Sherman tank and its 75mm gun had the gall to feature an M36 in its opening sequence. I wonder if that Jackson had HVAP and T33?
@John Cornell There were heavy casualties on both sides. I was referring to the action on a narrow, misty road that permanently ended Kampfgruppe Peiper's advance. A Sherman commanded by Lt. Francis Powers knocked out two Panthers, one with a single round to the shot trap (which put it in flames) and a second with a shot through the lower slope plate. The Sherman's gun jammed when attempting to fire on a third Panther, and the Panther fired several rounds at Powers' Sherman, but missed, before the company's lone M36 was able to take over and put it in flames. With three machines knocked out, two in flames, the Germans retreated. I don't see that the U.S. force lost any tanks in this action.
Lt. Powers went on to claim a third Panther during the battle for the sanitorium.
Panzerkampfwagen V panther the legend tank
M4A3E8 "sherman" "easy eight", the legend tank with his delicious browning mashineguns, and 76mm cannon who can destroy every panther, tiger 1, and t-34
Gabriel Borawski you can’t even spell machine gun and the panther would kill the Sherman before it got within its kill range
@@Golden_Wolf_Gaming im joking with this mashineguns :D
@@Golden_Wolf_Gaming That's not a smart comment. If you take the first shot, chances are you win numb nuts. Panthers have been lost to guns smaller than the Sherman's 75 or 76 you testicle.
Now i know why the M1 Abrams also sucks on every terrain. But the M1 has something new: he chokes himself in the desert using his chains to throwi sand to the engine airfilter.
And that's why the allies lost the war.
And people say the Panther had no mobility.. .LOL
i have also heard that a lot idk what some people are thinking
panther was not slow it was a great main battle tank
@@CBUCK1994 how can it be great with the reliability issues? Hell the early ones would set themselves on fire because of how stupid they were designed
You know that MAN learned from their mistakes and fixed a lot issues. The Main Problem was the prisoniers were used to build the parts and so were the most nit build right and so on
Collin Buckley panther is not a main battle tank lmao.
But what is a good tank without fuel and airsupport??A sitting duck.
and that´s what count !
Actually planes didn't destroy many tanks. That's a myth on both sides. It was actually quite hard to destroy tanks from the air.
Exactly the Panther was better engineered than T-34/85 and Sherman. Also the gun and armour of Panther have a superiority on those Tanks.
Welp at least the sherman have no breakdowns in the battle field
slav_ shoes if the german didn’t get bomb so much then yea
Yes but motorisation is pure nightmare. Always broken. Also Fragile and tremendously diesel-consuming. And To long to produce.
German tanks were over designed built to have lifespans of years in a war that would chew them up and spit them out in a few months
No wehraboo, it was an inferior design to both those tanks. It broke down doing 1/10th the distance of a Sherman. cost 3 times as much to produce.
Terrible overengineering = crock of shite design thinking.
And yet, here we are.
Thats right. A 30 tonne tank cant push over a tree that a 40 tonne tank can, but it gets stuck in a marsh that the heavier tank passes with ease 🤣🤣🤣...panthers broke down and had lower power to weight ratios.
When tge Gemans captured Churchill tanks at Dieppe tgey gave them rotten fitness reports. But those Churchill tanks were superior to thr Panzer III and IV then in use and had considerable success in Normandy.
The Panther is such a beauty. Too bad the reliability was flawed
That's because it still had teething problems and germanys metal quality was deteriorating causing it to become brittle
@@mykolaslipskis9727
And engineering was out of wack. Overengineered in places and underengineered in others. I believe final drives had straight cut teeth rather than the stronger diagonal cut ones. Also to remove the gear box the top of the hull had be removed to lift it out as opposed to the Shermans unit which could be replaced by unbolting the front and bolting a new one in.
Overall on paper this tank is perfect but in practice it was from from perfect but still good by the end the only real problem was the weak side and final drive
My guess would be those extra wide treads gave the panther the edge on alot of that terrain.
As well as the seemingly better link treading the panther had. Worse for roads, but better for off-road.
Indeed, you should watch the full test video which covers all this. This is just silly clips from. It is still on dailymotion. Search for tank cross country capability sherman vs panther
Sherman's were designed for easy transport on trains and cargo ships. They avoided tank to tank combat, relying on air superiority and artillery. When weather made air cover impossible, the cards were in the German army's hands. Luckily that mostly wasn't the case
@@demitrilinon8681 look up the Battle of Arracourt. No air cover and the Germans were badly beaten. A large number of the German tanks were Panthers.
It was also the very complex "Schachtellaufwerk" that brought advantages
Who won?
Halo mannen the sherman
The sherman of course....the panther broke down before even getting into the fight
From this video i'd say Panther won but to be fair, Sherman answered more common and well thought like crew survival, easy maintenance, easily mass produced, and many more, altough the Sherman suffered, it came earlier than a panther
DoNotEvenTry No, you American guy.Panther easily win.
@@AFT_05G how
Sherman is bad, but Sherman can defending any Soldier and Sherman can use for Protextion what matter is destroyed
Golden Animz get off wot
*WARNING THERE ARE TOO MANY WHEERABOS*
that is a sherman firefly vs panther g .
thats 100% not a Panther G its a Panther A.
Panther A, that's my profile picture
Not a panther g, issa panther A
this film puts into question the saying the Sherman was more reliable than German tanks! the Panther looks superior here!
yeah that is also what u can see in the comments on the video sooo many people only look at the stats on paper
It has been proven again and again it was. Hell even the germans have said so. So you go by a bull shit video where in some parts the panther didn't go through the same things as the Sherman
These tests show nothing about reliability, all they show is the ability of cross country driving, and obstacle clearing.
Да уже только по внешнему виду можно понять, что такое Шерман и что Пантера.
По сравнению с 34-кой и то и то говно, только орудие хорошее
Kopierter Text wird automatisch hier angezeigt
@@ussr2961 34-ку вы создали? 😂 говно это 34-ка как раз, ничего она не сделала когда Немцы подошли к москве и ничего чтобы не подошли.
Если бы не Американцы то вам каюк.
34-ки воевали вместе с шерманами по ленд-лизу
👌🏻👍🏻
LOL YEAH TAKE THAT M4 PEOPLE KEEP SAYING ITS A GREAT TANK IT CAN HANDLE ANY CONDITIONS WHILE DRIVING IN WAR MAYBE THERE ONLY GOOD AT REPRODUCING MORE M4'S BECAUSE THERE CHEAPER TO BUILT LONG AS THE EASY 8 LOL I GUESS THE GERMANS HAD BETTER TANKS BECAUSE WITH OUT Germans help in the modern times the americans would of never built the Abrahams lol so true
no hate please appreciate
And then the T-34 Spam steam rolls over Germany. Nice try Wehrahboos.
That independent suspension makes all the difference.
The shermans were a shit definitely hahahaha the panther was always by far the best tank ever
How can you compare a Goliath and David?
The panther was good at 2 things breaking down and being a bit*h to fix. the sherman had speed good penetration with the 76 mm and good protection in the jumbo. best tank though is t34 85
VMan29397 The Panther have more speed and armor than the shitty Sherman.
Armor thickness and gun penetration mean nothing compared to the getting the first shot off and the psychological.
imgur.com/EVKUetf
Robert H. Goddard: The Father of Rocketry yes it does you are also saying that if a panzer 3 shoots at a Jumbo the crew bails out because reasons
Great video - tanks
Oh. I must have forgotten that Germany didn't get its ass kicked in WWII.
The Sherman based on a tractor design stayed one.
it is almost unfair to compare the panther to the sherman. panther had at the time revolutionary suspension system. nice long barrel powerful and accurate gun and thick armor. its weakness was its airplane engine transmission and high maintanence needs not to mention few was available, which is good ao the jerries lost the war.
+gyula halasz Panthers revolutionary suspension system? You must be joking or getting confused with Christie's suspension.
search for the documentaries on the panther. there is a few and going into details on how the suspension design not just made it superior on though terrain ( this movie demonstrate) but also made it able to fire in roll and hit targets at moderate range. most every tank had to stop for fire. while the panther was not intended to do that it could. the post ww2 tanks are firing in a roll or while moving. the pitfall of that was the difficult repair of the wheels on the panther.
+gyula halasz Yep German documentation, and one that obviously overlooks the superior alternatives that existed at the time that were not German that or a design copied by the Germans, and obviously Germans think their crap is the best, while its a pile of over-engineered shite.
Panther suspension was so called torsion bar system. You can find it from tanks like Abrams, Leopard2, T-90 etc. you got point. No one talks about christie anymore.
_Panthers revolutionary suspension system? You must be joking or getting confused with Christie's suspension_
Oh yes, because almost every MBT after WW II used Christie suspension instead of torsion bar.
Oh wait.
Actually, it turns out that the Christie suspension was a dead end that has not been used in almost any tank design since the 40´s, while the torsion bar is everywhere.
Panther was ultimately a better rank but had many flaws too. Still my fav tank of ww2
I love how most of these ‘internet historians’ claim absolute domination of ‘german engineering’. Go and read something in your life about how those tanks actually performed. Transmission and engine failures, over-engineered parts not easily replaceable on battlefield etc. I’m not saying that Sherman was dominant product, but sure as hell was more reliable...
You´ll just have to admit, that German tanks were, and still are, better - in ww2 and today. Not much more to say about that - unless you´re american, and therefore feel uncomfortabel to realize, that all Your country has given to the world is junk - food, culture, the present president and war machinery :-D
Steen Søgaard sorry fam, have to dissapoint you but I’m not American. I never said that Shermans were BETTER, I said they were more RELIABLE. Learn how to read for gods sake.
@@starscream007 Although the Germans were better in making tanks than the US (in certain aspects), the Sherman tank is more reliable and more replaceable than the German tanks.
I don't say that the German tanks are unreliable but Adolf Hitler's experience from WWI had made the most unreliable German tank, the Pzfpw VIII Maus. Obviously he should just rely on more fast medium tanks, anti tank guns and anti aircraft guns (and also he should get lots of oil fast).
I add that not only the Maus is not the only unreliable German tank, the Ferdinand was the most unreliable German destroyer.
However, not only the Germans had the most unreliable tanks, the Soviets own KV 2 died by a slope because of its super big turret of doom (and unreliability). That's obviously Stalin's idea to make KV's head bigger.
You know that the worst tank ever was made by New Zealand in desperation during WWII?
@Gulag ticket *Stalin sends you to gulag because you are not the gulag ticket* -oof-
@@starscream007 But as the German tanks gets better at everything (until 1944), the transmission gets worse, and the tanks were getting worse from 1944.
Panther problem transmission tank.
Sherman - 30т
Panther - 45т
wtf?
wow good germany
BESTEST MEDIUM TANK OF THE WAR!
can u provide proof?
Rio Grande do Sul Ball nice English
The best medium tank is T 34 85
@@gleb7514 in number :).. not copaire wiht panther . any german tanck it's incoparable by the ader aliat tanck . thay make muchi batter and qualiti this is the resion whay thay lose the war :)
T 34 cost less to make and is more practical for large scale manufacturer in many ways.
The Sherman was probably the best tank of WW2 in the capacity in which it was designed for. This video was produced by someone with an agenda. I refer you all to the Cheiftain
Actually, the film only shows one capability of a tank tested by the swedes more or less scientific purposes.
Also just for, there is no best tank of WW2, maybe the best for a country.
Power of german engineering
The Panther is perfect, to the "T",
As an enemy - destroying "ATV"! 🔥🔥🔥
Panther is better!! I dont like the American Engineering
can u provide more info why u think the panther is better either then u don't like American Engineering
American quality is worse than chinese quality
@@motulautech4680 made in china breaks every where
Умирайте у себя дома
It's too reliable, that American engineering! And there are too many of them. It's not fair! They have an air force, and plentiful artillery ammo, not fair! etc. etc.
Panther was the summary of the all lesson learned from the eastern front. This design was clearly before its time and inspired all of the tank designers for the modern era tanks.
Thats the why Panthers were used till to end of 1950's at many european armies like France.
Not the case at all, no. The _Panther_ was developed from a requirement in '1940 to replace the _III_ and _IV_ with a 20 tonne, later expanded to a 40 tonne design. It was by no measure ahead of its time, nor really inspired modern tanks anymore than its contemporaries.
The _Panther_ was used by France until '1950 because they had control of several assembly plants until well after the war continuing to produce _Panthers_ just to bolster their numbers until MDAP came up and supplied more _M4's._
The T34 and M4 saw service past the year 2000,
Da muss man nicht extra ein Filmchen drehen , hättest mich gefragt. .haetts dir au sagen können. ..
Deutsche Panzer waren und sind die besten der Welt!
das stimmt ich bevorzuge vorallem die tigerreie
Stimmt!
Aufjedenfall! Alles von den Deutschen war/ist das Beste!
@@paulxd1683 Leider viel zu unausgereift. Aber wunderschöne Maschinen sind das
@@Frejki man hätte mehr Zeit benötigt um es zu einer perfekten Maschine zu machen
Where's the one comparing time to replace a roadwheel, transmission, or engine?
Maintainability
Sherman - good
Panther - fail
Price
Sherman - good
Panther - fail
Number of units
Sherman - 49000
Panther - 6000
P. S. Немцефилы есть везде))
@John Cornell that's because the Sherman was the main US tank in ww2 while the panther was one of many different designs.
My point is, you can't compare these tank losses
The Sherman won the war....the Panther lost. End of discussion.
@John Cornell I know John...I was over-simplifying of course. I just get tired of the fan boys drooling over all the German tanks and talking crap about the Sherman. Yes, the German tanks look cooler. But a lot of the features of the Sherman....easy mass production...general reliability...small enough to be shipped easily across the Atlantic...etc....did do a lot to facilitate the allied victory. Conversely, many features of the "cool" German tanks...particularly the Tigers but also the Panthers...did a great deal to help Germany lose the war....like general over-engineering...unreliability....expensive to produce (thus limited numbers)...over-stressed powertrain....extreme weight. I think the Germans would have lasted longer if they had skipped the Tigers (and maybe the Panthers) entirely and put the resources into producing far greater numbers of Panzer IVs. I read somewhere that 5 Panzer IVs could be built for the resources and cost of a Tiger I.
So my point: Yes the German heavy tanks were cool...but that doesn't win wars.
@John Cornell Once the Germans invaded Russia and declared war on the USA....their defeat was inevitable, so it's all kind of moot really. All we can discuss is what hardware would have expedited or slowed the German demise...there was no way they were going to win.
O pantera é de longe superior ao Sherman !
Pantera negra é o melhor tanque
Maybe we should talk about how many dozens of Shermans could be built loaded shipped and put into service compared to just one panther. Panther a better tank, sure it was, can a hive of bees kill a lion, you bet it can.
Thats was the allies strategy when it comes to tanks. They knew German tanks were superior, but hell with it. For each German tank, the soviets had 20 T34s and the US had 50 Shermans. Thats the winning recipe for war: production.
Ah, the Panther.
A piece of shit Tank that was more of a hindrance than a help to a war.
If you only consider the tank the Panther was a much better tank then the sherman in nearly each discipline. On the other hand it needed much more ressources and manpower to deploy and keep him running.
Another important thing you have like 20 shermans per panther
yeah if not more
@ZDProletariat weren't 6000 produced? I will check that
And the shaman was 3.6 times more effective than the panther so that is a thing as well
49,234 Shermans build during WW2. Just short of 6000 Panthers build. That makes a rough ratio of 8:. Not 20, nor 5. roughly 8.
But instead of no. produced, you should take no. assigned to the particular front. Some Shermans went to Russia, some to Pacific. Most panthers went to the Eastern front.
So 20-1 might not be that much off in terms of no. assigned. But it's all relative and I think it's safe to say, that the Germans were quite outnumbered. Be it 20:1, 10:1 or 8:1.
You forgor to insert a critical word in your comment. Let me fix it for you: You have like 20 *dead* shermans per panther
Panther easy victory.
No. Not a easy victory
Miki Laursen How so?
Miki Laursen Panther can free the shit out of sherman from over 2 km.
yes that may be true but that also means that he needs to see the sherman from 2 km away and that they haven't spotted him first
Miki Laursen German optics.
And germans had great experience on tank battles from eastern front, but yanks didin't have any kind of battle experience when entering Normandy.
Transmission vs panther LMAO
Sherman used to be an infrantry support tank, meanwhile the Panther was a main battle tank.
Pointless to compare the two.
Both were standard medium tanks, and both were expected to fight enemy tanks - and they met each other hundreds of times. only the British had dedicated infantry tanks. "Main Battle Tank" was a Cold War concept. You could argue that the Panther was the "original" MBT as it had it all; heavy frontal armor, powefull dual purpose gun and excellent mobility.
@@TTTT-oc4eb As far as I know, it was an infrantry support tank.
Became an MBT, because the Shermans were the best the allies can drop against the Cats. But because of the military retorics used in ww1 in terms of tanks, and at the start of ww2 it hasn't changed, Sherman was designed to be a support unit. Good armor, and agility, and supportive armament (hence the pen, shooting angles and distance of the basic gun)
Later, with upgraded armament (76mm) it became an MBT indeed, and because Gouderian revolutionary thinking about these machines.
german quality against amerian mass production. its technicaly a firefly not a sherman.
basicly everything a tank has to do the firefly/m4 fails at it...